IllustrationEXCESSIVE RUST ON FRAME SINCE 2008. TOYOTA REFUSED TO ADDRESS AFTER FILING FORMAL COMPLAINT. I BELIEVE LIKE TRUCKS OF SAME YEAR THAT HAD FRAMES REPLACED, 4 RUNNERS SHOULD BE INCLUDED
2002 Toyota 4RUNNER
Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations
More warning signs than most 4RUNNER years
Owner complaints for the 2002 Toyota 4RUNNER are substantially higher than the model-year median of 58.
About this comparison →How this year compares
Owner complaints by model year
Compare all 4RUNNER years →Counts vary with age, sales and reporting. They are not failure rates.
What owners reported most
All reported categories
Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.
When problems were reported
Mileage at the reported incident
40–25K
325–50K
1550–75K
1375–100K
57100–150K
54150K+
146 reports with mileage · 46 unknown
NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.
What to inspect
Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.
- Structure. Review the 88 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Suspension. Review the 43 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
- Power Train. Review the 29 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
12 crash reports2 fire reports9 injury reports
What owners actually said
192 reportsAT A STOP LIGHT, WENT TO DRIVE HEARD LOAD POP CLANK. VEHICLE STARTED SHAKING AND DRIVING FUNNY. LOOKED UNDER CAR AND MY CONTROL ARM ( THAT STABILIZES MY AXEL ) MOUNT RUSTED OFF. MY ENTIRE UNDER CARRIAGE IS RUSTED OUT. THE CONTROL ARM SHIFTED
ON MY 2002 TOYOTA 4 RUNNER THE BRACKET WELDED TO THE FRAME FOR REAR TRAILING ARM ON DRIVERS SIDE RUSTED OFF CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO SWAY AND ACT VERY STRANGE. LOTS OF OTHER PLACES RUSTED BAD ON FRAME ALSO!
EXCESSIVE RUST ON FRAME. RUSTING FROM THE INSIDE OUT, ON PASSENGER SIDE NEAR MUFFLER, BY REAR SUSPENSION MOUNTS. RUSTED ALL THE WAY THROUGH ON THE INSIDE OF THE FRAME. LIKELY RUSTED IN OTHER PARTS THAT ARE NOT VISIBLE.
MY 2002 TOYOTA 4RUNNER HAS EXCESSIVE RUST ON THE FRAME TO THE POINT THAT IT HAS BEEN DEEMED BY MY LOCAL TOYOTA DEALERSHIP AS "UNSAFE TO DRIVE." IT ONLY HAS 180,000 MILES ON IT, THE RUST SHOULD NOT BE THIS EXTENSIVE.
MY 2002 TOYOTA 4 RUNNER FAILED MASS STATE INSPECTION DUE TO EMERGENCY BRAKE NOT ENGAGING. I IMMEDIATELY BROUGHT THE VEHICLE TO A LOCAL AUTO SHOP FOR REPAIR. I WAS THEN NOTIFIED BY THE SHOP THAT THE ENTIRE FRAME WAS COMPLETELY ROTTED & UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THEY REFUSED TO DO ANY REPAIR TO THE E-BRAKE UNTIL THE FRAME WAS REPAIRED. I'M…
Read full complaint
MY 2002 TOYOTA 4 RUNNER FAILED MASS STATE INSPECTION DUE TO EMERGENCY BRAKE NOT ENGAGING. I IMMEDIATELY BROUGHT THE VEHICLE TO A LOCAL AUTO SHOP FOR REPAIR. I WAS THEN NOTIFIED BY THE SHOP THAT THE ENTIRE FRAME WAS COMPLETELY ROTTED & UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THEY REFUSED TO DO ANY REPAIR TO THE E-BRAKE UNTIL THE FRAME WAS REPAIRED. I'M DEVASTATED THAT MY WELL CARED FOR VEHICLE , WITH ONLY 130,000 MILES IS NOW UNSAFE TO DRIVE DUE TO FRAME ROT.
REAR SWAYBAR RUSTED FROM FRAME CAUSING 4RUNNER TO WOBBLE EXCESSIVLY ALMOST CAUSING ME TO WRECK. THAT SIDE OF FRAME IS COMPLETELY RUSTED AWAY.
THIS IS YET ANOTHER COSTUMER OF THE 4RUNNER 3RD GENERATION COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FRAME RUSTING OUT. THERE NEEDS TO BE RESPONSABILITY FOR THE BAD FRAMES ON THIS YEAR 4RUNNER. MY FRAME HAS HOLES IN THE REAR CONTROL ARM ATTACHMENT AREA AND MORE RUST ALL THROUGHOUT ENTIRE FRAME. I'M DOING ALL I CAN TO KEEP MY FRAME FROM GETTING ANY …
Read full complaint
THIS IS YET ANOTHER COSTUMER OF THE 4RUNNER 3RD GENERATION COMPLAINING ABOUT THE FRAME RUSTING OUT. THERE NEEDS TO BE RESPONSABILITY FOR THE BAD FRAMES ON THIS YEAR 4RUNNER. MY FRAME HAS HOLES IN THE REAR CONTROL ARM ATTACHMENT AREA AND MORE RUST ALL THROUGHOUT ENTIRE FRAME. I'M DOING ALL I CAN TO KEEP MY FRAME FROM GETTING ANY MORE RUST ON IT AND KEEPING IT SAFE TO BE ON THE ROAD. I STRONGLY BELIEVE TOYOTA SHOULD ALSO HAVE A FRAME RECALL FOR THE 4RUNNER LIKE IT DID FOR THE TUNDRA TACOMA AND SEQUOIA FRAMES.
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA 4RUNNER. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS UNDERGOING ROUTINE SERVICE AT AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC SHOP, THE TECHNICIAN NOTICED THAT THE FRAME WAS CORRODED THROUGH AND CAUSED THE TAILPIPE TO DETACH. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO A DEALER. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF TH…
Read full complaint
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA 4RUNNER. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS UNDERGOING ROUTINE SERVICE AT AN INDEPENDENT MECHANIC SHOP, THE TECHNICIAN NOTICED THAT THE FRAME WAS CORRODED THROUGH AND CAUSED THE TAILPIPE TO DETACH. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT TAKEN TO A DEALER. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 168,000. ..*BF *JB
I HAVE A 2002 4 RUNNER AND PUT ALMOST $2,800.00 IN IT LAST YEAR FOR A NEW REAR END, NEW TIRES, BECAUSE I FELT IT STILL HAD A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF LIFE LEFT IN IT, ONLY TO FIND OUT THAT THE FRAME HAS 2 HOLES IN IT FROM EXCESSIVE RUST. THE DEALERSHIP I TOOK IT TO INFORMED ME THAT THEY WERE CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF REPLACING FR…
Read full complaint
I HAVE A 2002 4 RUNNER AND PUT ALMOST $2,800.00 IN IT LAST YEAR FOR A NEW REAR END, NEW TIRES, BECAUSE I FELT IT STILL HAD A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF LIFE LEFT IN IT, ONLY TO FIND OUT THAT THE FRAME HAS 2 HOLES IN IT FROM EXCESSIVE RUST. THE DEALERSHIP I TOOK IT TO INFORMED ME THAT THEY WERE CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF REPLACING FRAMES FOR 2003 - 2009 MODELS. WHEN I ASKED ABOUT THE 2002 MODELS, THEY STATED THAT TOYOTA DOES NOT ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE 4 RUNNERS. MY QUESTION IS "HOW DO I FIND OUT IF THE 2002 FRAMES WERE MANUFACTURED WITH THE SAME MATERIALS THAT THE 2003 MODELS WERE MADE OF?" I REALLY WANTED TO HAND THIS CAR DOWN TO MY DAUGHTER. SHE NEEDS A CAR AND WITH THE CURRENT SITUATION OF THE FRAME, THERE IS NO WAY I CAN LET HER DRIVE THIS IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION. PLEASE HELP!!!
Official recalls
105V225000 · Suspension:front:control Arm:lower Ball Joint
May 17, 2005
ON CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, DUE TO A MANUFACTURING ISSUE IN THE FRONT SUSPENSION LOWER BALL JOINT, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE SURFACE OF THE BALL OF THE JOINT MAY HAVE BEEN SCRATCHED. THE BALL JOINT MAY EVENTUALLY EXPERIENCE EXCESSIVE WEAR AND LOOSENESS, RESULTING IN INCREASED STEERING EFFORT.
Consequence & remedy
Consequence: THE LOWER BALL JOINT MAY SEPARATE FROM THE KNUCKLE CAUSING LOSS OF STEERING CONTROL AND A CRASH COULD OCCUR.
Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE FRONT SUSPENSION LOWER BALL JOINTS FREE OF CHARGE. THE RECALL BEGAN ON JULY 5, 2005. OWNERS MAY CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
1DP18002 · Frame Corrosion
Opened Aug 17, 2018 · Closed Mar 18, 2022
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Structure:frame And Members
On August 7, 2018, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) received a defect petition from Mr. Gary Weinreich alleging premature frame corrosion failure in model year (MY) 2002 - 2006 Toyota 4Runner vehicles. The petitioner based his request upon a corrosion-related front suspension failure he experienced in his MY 2005 Toyota 4Runner, a class action lawsuit settlement involving other Toyota products, and other complaints of underbody corrosion in Toyota 4Runner vehicles that he found in NHTSA?s online complaint database. The petitioner submitted a complaint to NHTSA documenting his experience (NHTSA ID 11098055). On August 17, 2018, ODI opened DP18-002 to evaluate the petitioner?s request. ODI?s evaluation included information provided by the petitioner regarding his vehicle, facts related to the class action lawsuit cited by the petitioner, and consumer complaint data received by NHTSA regarding underbody corrosion in third and fourth-generation Toyota 4Runner vehicles.The undercarriage of the petitioner?s vehicle exhibited severe corrosion damage indicative of seawater immersion. The vehicle?s service history shows that concerns with underbody corrosion were first noted by a Toyota dealer in a multi-point vehicle inspection performed on April 28, 2011. The invoice for that inspection noted ?severe and excessive amount of rust on the undercarriage and on the drive shaft transmission.? Two years later, on October 21, 2013, another multi-point inspection by a Toyota dealer observed further progression of underbody corrosion damage, noting: ?rust on shocks/struts and other components,? ?rust on exhaust system,? ?both splash shields severely rusted,? and ?undercarriage very rusty.? On July 17, 2017, approximately 10 months prior to experiencing the suspension failure incident, an independent repair facility performing routine oil change and brake maintenance informed the Petitioner of a concern with ?excessive frame corrosion? on his vehicle. The service history, severe general corrosion damage, failure age, and environment do not support the petitioner?s allegation of premature corrosion failure.ODI?s analysis of NHTSA complaint data identified fifteen incidents of front lower control arm failure in fourth-generation Toyota 4Runner sport utility vehicles. Two of the failures, including the petitioner?s vehicle, involve vehicles operated in ocean front communities with continuous exposure to aerosolized marine salts and potential exposure to seawater immersion. The remaining thirteen failures all involved vehicles owned or previously registered in states with the greatest use of deicing salts to treat road surfaces in winter months (?Salt states?). On average, the front lower control arm failures occurred after 13.1 years in service in highly corrosive environments. The failure ages and environments do not support the petitioner?s allegation of premature corrosion failure. NHTSA is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the Agency?s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 U.S.C. ?? 30102(a)(9), 30118. Since the information before the Agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. Therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. The denial of this petition does not foreclose the Agency from taking further action if warranted or the p